8/12/2019 AM2011_0217_paper

1/11

1

Defining a Political Brand Alliance: The Conservative and Liberal Democrat Coalition

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to posit a definition of a political brand alliance, and thereby

advance the political marketing and brand marketing literature. This is achieved by building

upon and extending Erevelles et al (2008, p.32) definition of brand alliance, and applying it to

the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties Westminster level coalition, established in

2010. The paper argues that:

A political brand alliance is the association between two or more independent political party

brands. The perceived value of the integrated offering may or may not be enhanced in the

minds of the electorate. It does not involve explicit joint-branding efforts by the partners inthe alliance. Neither does the alliance seek to present the integrated political offering as one

joint political party in the market place. It may to some extent involve a change in the

meaning of the political product of each political party brand in the coalition. However, a

political partys product would not effectively cease to exist in the absence of the brand

alliance (Adaptedand Extended from Erevelles et al, 2008, p. 32)

Keywords:politics, brand alliance, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats

Paper Type: Competitive Paper

Track: Political Marketing

8/12/2019 AM2011_0217_paper

2/11

2

1. Introduction

The 2010 British General Election produced an historic result with no one party being able to

command a majority in the House of Commons. This was particularly peculiar as the

Westminster First-Past-the Post (FPP) system of voting has traditionally produced stable

working majorities for one political party to govern on its own. Thus the result was that the

Labour Party (the ruling Party since 1997) came second on number of constituencies gained,

finishing behind the Conservative Party. Despite the Conservatives under the leadership of

David Cameron able to secure the most constituencies and therefore the most MPs, the

Conservative Party was still short of an overall majority in the House of Commons and thus

faced the choice of trying to govern as a minority administration, or attempting to form a

coalition with the Liberal Democrat Party, under the leadership of Nick Clegg. The latter was

the preferred course of action, and as the result the two parties agreed (after several days of

negotiation) to form a coalition government.

There is a widely developed political marketing literature which at its heart seeks to explain

and / or conceptualise how one political party is successful or otherwise in gaining a majority

in the Westminster FPP electoral system (Egan, 1999; Harris and Lock, 2001; Lees-

Marshment, 2005; Savigny, 2005; Wring, 2001). A substantial gap in theory building

however exists for the present situation whereby no one political party has a majority, and

thus faces the prospect of being in coalition with another political party at Westminster. Given

the relative rarity of the FPP system not producing an overall majority this is to be expected,

since for academic research in political marketing to have relevance and currency, it has

indeed been rational for theorisation to occur on the assumption that the FPP system of voting

will produce a one party government. This assumption behind the models and theoriespolitical marketing has produced is further justified in that political marketing as a relatively

young discipline (Baines and Egan, 2001; Moufahim and Lim, 2009) has not experienced

coalition politics at Westminster level. It is therefore likely that Westminster political

marketing research in the coming years will have significant opportunities for intellectual

advancement and development, as scholars build, re-build, refine, extend and extrapolate

Westminster level theories and models of political marketing. This will be no simple task, and

along the way errors and misconceptualisations are likely to occur, but at the end of this

period of electoral history political marketing research is likely to have been significantly

advanced.

In composing this article the author starts his thought process from the basis of what

marketing theories exist in the current literature that may have some scope to explain the

current Westminster electoral situation. The author therefore began to critically'1consider

what commercial marketing theories may have import in explaining the present electoral

situation. The focus of the authors deliberations wasin relation to the coalition alliance

between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party, and what marketing theories

may have some relevance in explaining the relationship between the two parties. The author

1This author recognises that the import of commercial marketing theories into political marketing may not be completely replicable given

conceptual differences between the commercial and political markets (Baines and Egan, 2001; Butler and Collins, 1994; Egan, 1999; Lock

and Harris, 1996; OShaughnessy, 2001). Hence, the critical interpretation of this pa per.

8/12/2019 AM2011_0217_paper

3/11

3

recalled that one of the growing themes in commercial brand marketing literature were in

relation to how and why organisations formed brand alliances. This paper therefore critically

examines how the theory of brand alliance may have relevance to the explaining the coalition

between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. The theory of brand alliance was

deemed to have particular relevance given the growing literature on the application of

branding principles to political parties (e.g. Davies and Mian, 2008; French and Smith, 2010;

Gelb and Sorescu, 2000; Needham, 2005; 2005; Phipps et al, 2010; Reeves, 2007; Reeves, de

Chernatony and Carrigan, 2006; Schneider, 2004; Smith, 2001; Smith and French, 2009).The

paper will now progress to consider one definition of a brand alliance, and its possible

revision and extension into a form useful for describing a political brand alliance. Discussion

will be from the perspective of the ConservativeLiberal Democrat coalition.

2. Analysing a Definition of Brand Alliance in the Context of the ConservativeLiberal

Democrat Coalition

This article uses the following definition of brand alliance as a basis for discussion.

A brand alliance is:the association between two or more independent brands sothat the perceived value of

[the] integrated offering is enhanced in the minds of the consumer. It does not involve explicit joint-branding

efforts... by the partners in the alliance, that seek to present the integrated offering as one entity in the market

place. It also does not involve a change in the meaningof the integrated product, in such a way that the

integrated product would effectively cease to exist in the absence of the brand alliance(Erevelles et al, 2008, p.32)

In electing to utilise this definition this author is aware that there are other definitions of brand

alliance that may have been deployed (e.g. Bluemelhuber et al, 2007; Dickinson eta al, 2007;

Gammoh et al;2006; 2010; Rao et al, 1999). The problem with many of these definitions isthat they are written in a linguistic form that is more suited to corporate rather than political

entities.Whereas Erevelles et al (2008) definition is produced in an article that is inherently

commercially focussed, the language which is used in the definitional scope of the article has

some degree of replicable currency to the political marketing context of this paper, above and

beyond that of any other widely disseminated article on brand alliances. It should be noted

that within the brand alliance literature, there remains some degree of contestability over the

definitional bases of the brand alliance construct (Cornelis, 2010; Tsantoulis and Palmer,

2008). As Rao et al (1999, p.259) notes brand alliances can include all circumstances in

which two or more brand names are presented jointly to the consumer. On these grounds, the

paper approaches definitional issues from a critical lens.

2.1 Brand Alliance: An Association Between Two or More Independent Political Brands

Erevelles et al (2008) suggests that a brand alliance represents an association between at least

two independent brands. This clearly has relevance to the coalition between the Conservatives

and the Liberal Democrats, since: (i) they are working together as two parties sharing power

in the Westminster government; (ii) the governmental agenda is espoused in a coalition

agreement, and; (iii) both parties serve in a combined cabinet whereby departmental offices of

state are shared equitably between the two parties, and thus have joint responsibility for

implementation of coalition policies. However the association between the two political partybrands is somewhat different to what would be observed in a commercial brand alliance,

8/12/2019 AM2011_0217_paper

4/11

4

given that a commercial brand alliance is more likely to be one of fully consensual strategic

choice, whereas a political brand alliance is a choice that is perhaps more one out of necessity

to form a stable government. Given concerns about the applicability of applying the

principles of branding to government (OShaughnessy, 2003), the paper advocates an

approach to brand alliance at a collaborative political party level. Erevelles et al (2008) notes

in their definition that the two brands in a brand alliance are independent. This stipulation

clearly has relevance to the posited brand alliance between the Conservatives and the Liberal

Democrats as the two political parties retain their own independent governance,

organisational, policy making, values, and membership architectures, that would exist if the

two parties had not been in coalition with each other. Hence apartys product would not

effectively cease to exist in the absence of the brand alliance (Erevelles et al, 2008, p.32)

2.2 Voters Perceptions of the Value of a Political Brand Alliance

The emphasis of Erevelles et al (2008) definition is firmly in the domain of consumers

interpretation of a brand alliance. Drawing upon the received wisdom that voters can be

conceptualised as consumers (Nimmo, 1975; Peng and Hackley, 2009; Shama, 1975;

Thrassou et al, 2009), the definition deserves further attention in terms of the perceptions of

voters towards the brand alliance between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat brands.

Accordingly it should be recognised that consumers [or voters] will have built over time

cognitive and emotional brand associations in the memory for each individual [political party]

brand name before the brand alliance (Dickinson and Barker, 2007; James, 2005). It therefore

follows that before a brand alliance is formed [political] consumers may have developed a

variety of associations with brand names that are suddenly paired (Washburn, 2000, p.593).

This has complex implications for how they continue to evaluate the quality of brandsindividually and jointly in the brand alliance (Rao and Ruekert, 1994). Erevelles et al (2008)

contends that the perceived value to consumers of a brand alliance will be enhanced. Thus

their assumption seems to be that a brand alliance results in improved brand image in the

minds of the consumer. This observation is open to some degree of debate, and has been a

subject of discussion within the commercial brand alliance literature that recognises in

practice that brand alliances can enhance or detract from consumers perceptions of each

constituent brand(Cornelis, 2010, p. 779) (Ahn et al, 2009; Bluemelhuber et al, 2007;

Chang, 2009; Dickinson and Heath, 2006; James, 2005; Washburn et al, 2000). More

particularly in the context of a political party brand alliance, it is likely to be the case that the

perceptions of brand image as a result of a brand alliance may either improve or deteriorate

for the combined brand alliance, or for individual parties in the brand alliance. A critical

feature impacting on this is whether [political] consumers perceive there to be an acceptable

level of fitbetween the organisations in the brand alliance (Ahn, 2009; Bluemelhuber et al,

2007; Dickinson and Barker, 2007; Dickinson and Heath, 2006; Rao et al, 1999), and their

individual brand personalities (Chang, 2009; James, 2006; Monga and Lau-Gesk, 2007).

Thus in such circumstances there needs to be consideration as to what extent and magnitude

voters perceive the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Parties as having an acceptable

degrees of fit and what impact this may have in future voting decisions. Another related

theme are the perceptions of the each brand before the brand alliance, and how and to whatextent are there spillover effects over time (either positive or negative) from one brand to the

8/12/2019 AM2011_0217_paper

5/11

8/12/2019 AM2011_0217_paper

6/11

6

2.4 A Political Brand Alliance May Result in an Adjustment in the Meaning of the Political

Product

One facet of Erevelles et al (2008) definition is however inapplicable to a political party brand

alliance in that it specifies that a brand alliance: does not involve a change in the meaning of

the integrated product (Erevelles et al, 2008, p. 32). This is unreplicable to the posited

Conservative- Liberal Democrat brand alliance in that there has been in some circumstances a

perceived change in the meaning of the integrated political product. This is inevitable given

the nature of the coalition whereby both parties have to negotiate/ bargain a common position

that combines elements of each partys policies. A topical and much publicised example of

where the integrated political products meaning has changed is with regards to university

tuition fees policy3. This is a controversial, yet clear example of how the political product

changes as a result of a political party coalition/ brand alliance. It is the nature of coalition

politics that the political brands product will change through party bargaining, and there will

inevitably be many examples in the future of electorally perceived political product change.

3. Conclusion: Positing a Definition of a Political Brand Alliance and Its Limitations

In conclusion building upon the preceding discussion of Erevelles et al (2008) definition of

brand alliance, this paper proposes the following definition of a political brand alliance:

A political brand alliance is the association between two or more independent political party brands. The

perceived value of the integrated offering may or may not be enhanced in the minds of the electorate. It does not

involve explicit joint-branding efforts by the partners in the alliance. Neither does the alliance seek to present

the integrated political offering as one joint political party in the market place. It may to some extent involve a

change in the meaning of the political product of each political party brand in the coalition. However, a

politicalpartysproduct would not effectively cease to exist in the absence of the brand alliance(Adapted andExtended from Erevelles et al, 2008, p. 32). Figure 1in the appendix to this paper depicts how this definition

relates to elements of Erevelles (2008, p.32) original definition, and above discussions.

This paper has a number of limitations which should be acknowledged. The first is that the

paper is conceptual rather than empirical. Hence, the theory which is built will require

empirical validation. The second limitation is that the theories of brand alliance are under-

developed in the commercial marketing literature, and there is likely to be future academic

research which may be useful to augment our understanding of political brand alliances. A

third limitation is that the contributions focus of analysis has been in terms of the posited

Conservative-Liberal Democrat brand alliance, and does not consider how political brandalliances may function between other political parties in other parliaments, councils, and other

democratically elected bodies within the U.K and internationally. A final limitation of the

paper is that it draws upon a very specific literature. It is likely to be fruitful to consider how

other academic literatures on matters such as strategic alliances, and international

comparisons of coalitions may further our understanding of political marketing and political

party coalitions. In short, whilst there are limitations associated with this paper, these

limitations may be considered through future empirical research.

3The Liberal Democrats campaigned in the run up to the 2010 General Election on the basis that university tuition fees (currently just over

3000 would be scrapped). However, recently the coalition government made policy that in effect means that tuition fees may in some

universities be near tripled from current levels up to 9000.In addition, it was not made clear before the election that the Conservatives mayintend to increase university tuition fees to this level.

8/12/2019 AM2011_0217_paper

7/11

7

References

Ahn, S., Kim. H. and J. Forney (2009). Co-marketing Alliances Between Heterogeneous

Industries: Examining Perceived Match-up Effects in Product, Brand and Alliance Levels,

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 16 (6), 477-485.

Baines, P. and J. Egan (2001). Marketing and Political Campaigning: Mutually Exclusive or

Exclusively Mutual?, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 4 (1), 25-34.

Baines, P., Harris, P. and B. Lewis (2002). The Political Marketing Planning Process:

Improving Image and Message in Strategic Target Areas,Marketing Intelligence and

Planning, 20 (1), 6-14.

Baines, P., Worcester, R., Jarrett, D. and R. Mortimore (2003). Market Segmentation and

Product Differentiation in Political Campaigns: A Technical Feature Perspective, Journal of

Marketing Management,19 (1/2), 225-249.

Bauer, H., Huber, F. and A. Herrman (1996). Political Marketing: An Information-EconomicAnalysis,European Journal of Marketing, 30 (10/11), 152-165.

Bluemelhuber, C., Carter, L. and C. Lambe (2007). Extending the View of Brand Alliance

Effects,International Marketing Review, 24 (4), 427-443.

Butler, P. and N. Collins (2001). Payment on Delivery: Recognising Constituency Service as

Political Marketing,European Journal of Marketing,35 (9/10), 1026-1037.

Butler, P. and N. Collins (1994). Political Marketing: Structure and Process, European

Journal of Marketing, 28 (1), 19-34.

Chang, W. (2009). Using Multi-Criteria Decision Aid to Rank and Select Co-brandingPartners,Kybernetes, 38 (6), 950-965.

Cornelis, P. (2010). Effects of Co-branding in the Theme Park Industry: A Preliminary Study,

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22 (6), 775-796.

Davies, G. and T. Mian (2008). The Reputation of the Party Leader and the Party Being Led,

European Journal of Marketing, 44 (3/4), 331-350.

Dickinson, S. and A. Barker (2007). Evaluations of Branding Alliances Between Non-profit

and Commercial Brand Partners: The Transfer of Affect,International Journal of Nonprofit

and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12 (1), 75-89.

Dickinson, S. and T. Heath (2006). A Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Results

Concerning Evaluations of Co-branded Offerings,Journal of Brand Management, 13 (6),

393-406.

Egan, J. (2005). Another False Dawn? The Liberal Democrats 2005,Journal of Marketing

Management, 21, (9/10), 959-978.

Egan, J. (1999). Political Marketing: Lessons from the Mainstream,Journal of Marketing

Management,15 (6), 495-503.

Erevelles, S., Horton and N. Fukawa (2008). Understanding B2C Brand Alliances Between

Manufacturers and Suppliers,Marketing Management Journal, 18 (2), 32-46.

8/12/2019 AM2011_0217_paper

8/11

8

French, A. and G. Smith. (2010). Measuring Political Brand Equity: A Consumer Oriented

Approach,European Journal of Marketing, 44 (3/4), 460-477.

Gammoh, B., Voss, E. and G. Chakraborty (2006). Consumer Evaluation of Brand Alliance

Signals ,Psychology and Marketing, 23 (6), 465-486.

Gammoh, B., Voss, E. and X. Fang (2010). Multiple Brand Alliances: A Portfolio

Diversification Perspective,Journal of Product and Brand Management, 19 (1), 27-33.

Gelb, B. and A. Sorescu. (2000). Republican Brands, Democrat Brands...,Journal of

Advertising Research ,40 (1/2), 95-102.

Harris, P. and A. Lock (2001). Establishing the Charles Kennedy Brand: A Strategy For An

Election the Result of Which is a Foregone Conclusion,Journal of Marketing Management,

17 (9/10), 943-956.

Henneberg, S. (2002). Understanding Political Marketing, In, N. OShaughnessy and S.

Henneberg (Eds.) The Idea of Political Marketing(pp. 93-170).London: Praeger Press.

Henneberg, S. and N. OShaughnessy ( 2009). Political Relationship Marketing: Some

Macro/Micro Thoughts,Journal of Marketing Management, 25 (1-2), 5-29.

James, D. (2005). Guilty Through Association: Brand Association Transfer to Brand

Alliances,Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22 (1), 14-24.

James, D., Lyman, M. and S. Foreman (2006). Does the Tail Wag the Dog? Brand Personality

in Brand Alliance Evaluation,Journal of Product and Brand Management, 15 (2/3), 173-183.

Lees-Marshment, J. (2005). The Marketing Campaign: The British Election of 2005,Journal

of Marketing Management, 21, (9/10), pp.1151-1160.

Lock. A, and P. Harris (1996). Political Marketing: Vive La Diffrence, European Journal of

Marketing, 30 (10/11), 14-24.

Monga, A. and L. Lau-Gesk (2007). Blending Co-Brand Personalities: An Examination of the

Complex Self,Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (3), 389-400.

Moufahim, M. and M. Lim. (2009). Towards a Critical Political Marketing Agenda,Journal

of Marketing Management, 25 (7/8), 763-776.

Needham, C. (2006). Brands and Political Loyalty,Journal of Brand Management, 13 (3),

178-187.

Needham, C. (2005). Brand Leaders, Clinton, Blair and the Limitations of the Permanent

Campaign,Political Studies,53 (2), 343-361.

Newman, B. and J. Sheth (1987).A Theory of Political Choice Behaviour, London: Praeger

Press.

Nimmo, D. (1975). Images and Voters Decision Making Processes,Advances in Consumer

Research, 2 (1), 771-781.

OCass, A. (2001). Political Marketing: An Investigation of the Political Marketing Concept

and Political Market Orientation in Australian Politics,European Journal of Marketing, 35(9/10), 1003-1025.

8/12/2019 AM2011_0217_paper

9/11

9

Ormrod, R. and S. Henneberg (2011). Political Market Orientation and Strategic Party

Postures in Danish Political Parties,European Journal of Marketing, 45 (6), page numbers

forthcoming.

Ormrod, R. and S. Henneberg (2010). An Investigation into the Relationship Between

Political Activity Levels and Political Market Orientation,European Journal of Marketing,44(3/4), 382-400.

OShaughnessy, N. (2003). The Symbolic State: A British Experience,Journal of Public

Affairs, 3 (4), 297-312.

OShaughnessy, N. (2001). The Marketing of Political Marketing,European Journal of

Marketing, 35, (9/10), 1047-1057.

Peng, N. and C. Hackley (2009). Are Voters, Consumers ? A Qualitative Exploration of the

Voter-Consumer Analogy in Political Marketing, Qualitative Market Research: An

International Journal, 12 (2), 171-186.

Phipps, M., Brace-Govan, J. and C. Jevons (2010). The Duality of Political Brand Equity,

European Journal of Marketing, 44 (3/4), 496-514.

Rao, A., Qu, L. and R. Ruekert (1999). Signalling Unobservable Product Quality Through a

Brand Ally,Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (2), 258-268.

Rao, A. and R. Ruekert. (1994). Brand Alliances as Signals of Product Quality, Sloan

Management Review, 36 (1), 87- 97.

Reeves, P. (2007).Anatomy of an Internal Branding Programme: The Case of the Liberal

Democrats, Unpublished PhD Thesis: University of Birmingham.

Reeves, P., de Chernatony, L. and M. Carrigan (2006). Building a Political Brand: Ideology

or Voter-Driven Strategy,Journal of Brand Management, 13 (6), 418-428.

Reid, D. (1988). Marketing the Political Product,European Journal of Marketing, 22 (9), 34-

47.

Rodrigue, C. and A. Biswas (2004) Brand Alliance Dependency and Exclusivity: An

Empirical Investigation,Journal of Product and Brand Management, 13 (7), 477-487.

Savigny, H. (2005). Labour, Political Marketing and the 2005 Election: A Campaign of Two

Halves,Journal of Marketing Management, 21 (9/10), 925-941.

Schneider, H. (2004). Branding in Politics: Manifestations, Relevance and Identity-

Orientated Management,Journal of Political Marketing, 3 (3), 41-67.

Schweiger, G. and M. Adami (1999). The Non-verbal Image of Politicians and Political

Parties, In B. Newman (Eds.)Handbook of Political Marketing, (pp.347-364). London: Sage.

Shama, A. (1975). Applications of Marketing Concepts to Candidate Marketing,Advances in

Consumer Research, 2 (1), 793-801.

Simonin, B. and J. Ruth (1998) Is Company Known by the Company It Keeps? Assessing the

Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes,Journal of Marketing

Research, 35 (1), 30-42.

8/12/2019 AM2011_0217_paper

10/11

10

Smith, G. (2001). The 2001 General Election: Factors Influencing the Brand Image of

Political Parties and their Leaders,Journal of Marketing Management, 17 (9/10), 989-1006.

Smith, G. and A. French (2009). The Political Brand: A Consumer Perspective,Marketing

Theory,9 (2), 209-226.

Thrassou, A.. Vrontis, D. and M. McDonald. (2009). A Marketing CommunicationsFramework For Small Political Parties in Developed Countries,Marketing Intelligence and

Planning, 27 (2), 268-292.

Tsantoulis, M. and A. Palmer (2008). Quality Convergence in Airline Co-brand Alliances,

Managing Service Quality, 18 (1), 34-64.

Washburn, J., Till, B. and R. Priluck (2000). Co-branding: Brand Equity and Trial Effects,

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17 (7), 591-604.

Washburn, J., Till, B. and R. Priluck (2004). Brand Alliance and Customer-Based Brand

Equity Effects,Psychology and Marketing, 21 (7), 487-508.

Wring, D. (2001). Labouring the Point: Operation Victory and the Battle for Second Term,

Journal of Marketing Management, 17 (9/10), 913-927.

8/12/2019 AM2011_0217_paper

11/11

11

APPENDIX

Figure 1: Comparing and Contrasting Definitions of a Commercial and Political Brand

Alliance Based on Erevelles et al (2008) Definition

Paper Section Commercial Brand Alliance Political Brand AllianceSection 2.1

Brand Alliance: An

Association Between Two or

More Independent Political

Brands

the association between two

or more independent brands

the association between two

or more independent political

party brands

Section 2.2

Voters Perceptions of the

Value of a Political Brand

Alliance

the perceived value of [the]

integrated offering is

enhanced in the minds of the

consumer

the perceived value of the

integrated offering may or

may not be enhanced in the

minds of the electorate

Section 2.3

Political Brand Alliance Does

Not Require Explicit Joint

Branding Efforts

It does not involve explicit

joint-branding efforts... by

the partners in the alliance

that seek to present the

integrated offering as one

entity in the market place

the integrated product

would... [not] effectively

cease to exist in the absence

of the brand alliance

It does not involve explicit

joint-branding efforts by the

partners in the alliance.

Neither does the alliance seek

to present the integrated

political offering as one joint

political party in the market

place

a political partys product

would not effectively cease to

exist in the absence of the

brand alliance

Section 2.4

A Political Brand Alliance

May Result in an Adjustment

in the Meaning of the

Political Product

It also does not involve a

change in the meaning of the

integratedproduct

It may to some extent

involve a change in the

meaning of the political

product of each political

party brand in the coalition